Your discomfort should tell you something about your position.
Well I've tried to be honest about my thoughts on this. I would suspect you experience a bit of discomfort thinking that a possible cure for Parkinsins would not be forthcoming, when it might. This doesn't mean you are wrong for your decision, it only means there are concerns (certain amounts of discomfort) for both sides.
I'm not talking perfect or souls or ideals, but reality and facts about taxonomy, purposeful actions and the consequences of those actions.
And I would say that I am contemplating certain inactions and the consequences that they might carry.
If you manipulate human DNA to create living tissue that is desirable because that tissue is human, developing in a human way and living, there shouldn't be any doubt about what you're doing and causing to be. If the embryo can be implanted in a woman's uterus (the big bugaboo that seems to frighten the AMA and Senator Hatch) and grow as any naturally occuring embryo, any doubt is more artificial than the "creation" of the embryo itself.
If enriched cells could be derived without the human embryo progressing too far along the road to maturity, I would support it. But I would only support this if it could be accomplished during the first four or five days of progression, most certainly less than a week.
I have explained on what moral grounds I would support this. And yes I do think it is a moral decison.
If anything, purposeful creation of a vulnerable human life outside the body carries added responsibility if you do believe that no one should be allowed to harm other humans that are not a danger to them. The technology necessary is very sophistocated and there is no room for doubt as to the fact that the actions are intentional. The duty of anyone who acts in this way is to protect and nourish the human until he can take care of himself or until someone else is willing to take responsibility. In the tradition of common law, where the person who dug the hole is responsible for anyone who fell into the hole, the new life may be due extra compensation for being placed in harms way (college education and the financing of a fancy wedding, perhaps).
Thank you for your comments. I don't believe we disagree on everything you've said by any means. I do however realize our conclusions are different.
You may wish to read my last post before this one.
150 posted on 06/19/2003 9:04 AM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
Yet, I must ask you about your position here. As a thought experiment, assume that it is 1954. Am I to understand your position to mean (assuming the technology had been available in 1954) that you would approve of me having being taken from my home; starved to death, or killed by oxygen starvation, and my cells then be used for some scientific experiment?
Even now, at my young 48 years of age, according to your principle of curing diseases, how long would I be "viable" outside my mother's womb without nutrition and hydration? By what principle of morality could I be kidnapped and killed by deprivation of essentials such as food or oxygen, and the predictible result be justified by the fact that I "was not viable anyway", and that my death will benefit mankind?
Cordially,